About your Search

20130201
20130228
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5 (some duplicates have been removed)
checks. that's helped them win more elections in red states and people like harry reid get elected in nevada, a pretty pro-gun state. the question is, is that going to be productive for people who want to see gun control get passed? will this mean an increased prag ma tichl, mean that the issue has a better chance of getting through? >> and what's the answer to that question? do we know? >> i don't have a crystal ball, but if you talk to people who support gun control, they have been beaten down for a long time, losing consistently for 20 years will do that to you. and they feel better than they ever have. there is, as you know, a lot of momentum behind this issue. a democratic president who has the bully pulpit who is using this on his agenda and now we have even some republicans coming to the table and signaling that there may be some kind of bipartisan action that can get through congress on gun control. that would be the first time since the brady bill in 1993, if that happens. >> molly ball from "the atlantic," thank you very much. >>> first lady michelle obama will go to chic
or whatever. they laid this on harry reid and that's how it all got started. he is -- so i says obama is lying basically is what he is saying, you know. he is dead wrong. the sequester did not start with jack lew. it are started back in 1985 with graham-rudman. >> that's when they first had the sequester for that round of budget cuts. so it's an idea that's been around. yes, as jay carney has pointed out, if there was a meeting with the white house, would the republicans remember who were holding up refuses to do anything about raising the debt ceiling because they said we have to have a lodge-term deficit reduction plan: the president said we will appoint this committee. >> i am having bad flashbacks >> bill: we were this and they said how do we know the super committee is going to do its job and jack lew said i remember something that they did 25 years ago or whatever called a sequester. the republicans said we like that idea. we will hold this giant rock above people's heads that will fall on their heads if they don't do hair job. the republicans e
president. we met with john boehner and his leadership team. we met with harry reid and his leadership team. our message was we think it is very important that governors have a seat at the table. we are partners. we wanted to make sure there were a few principles we could lay out. one is to the extent money is taken off of federal spending but he shifted to state spending, that does not accomplished much for our constituents. my view is that that they understood. they have reached out to us. we are pleased with the outrage. the main bipartisan message to us is that governors should continue to have a seat at the table. we know cuts are coming. we do not want to suffer disproportionately. we want input. >> does sequestration protect the states any more than other alternatives? >> look. if you take a look at it and when you say "states," it is important that we can talk about the impact. you're talking about the impact on the people we serve. the state of vehicles on of service. it covers everything from substance abuse treatment to head start to work force training. one of the frustrations f
john boehner talking to the president or mitch mcconnell talking to the vice president or harry reid, there's a few people at the top trying to make these decisions thinking we should all fall. there's little reach the bottom to find out where we are coming from and it's based on seniority. that hasn't worked well. we haven't been able to fix much with that type of attitude so i know when we reach out and have 25, 30 of us and we are reaching across the aisle malae -- i will give you a perfect example. we had a problem with revenue and people said we don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem. we have people on the other side saying we don't spending problem, we have a revenue problem. they are both right and they are both wrong. how do we get people on the other side if a republican says i don't want any more revenue but they said it might not be that it's just i don't like the way that you spend the money and the democrats say okay. can we come to an agreement? if we vote to have revenue and also you are asking me as a democrat if we have new revenue can you spend it
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5 (some duplicates have been removed)